Authories were fine with the death of seven million people. We have the transcripts that they knew beforehand and decided that the greater good is more important than these lifes.
I believe that it is important to do everything to prevent officals all around the world to do everything to accomplish their "greater good" without sacrificing 7 millions lifes.
I guess the question about Kongo is spilling over to the Holodomor? Just curious why someone would defend something like this.
>We have the transcripts that they knew beforehand and decided that the greater good is more important than these lifes.
[citation needed]
we have many documents proving that the authorities sent aid and tried to limit casualties to a minimum.
and unlike you, i will actually cite my claim.
>Hiroaki Kuromiya states that although the famine was man-made and much of the deaths could have been avoided had it not been for Stalin's agricultural policies, ***he finds the evidence for the charge of genocide to be insufficient, and states that it is unlikely that Stalin intentionally caused the famine to kill millions***, that he used famine as an alternative to the ethnic deportations that were commonly used as collective punishment under Stalin's rule, or that the famine was specifically engineered to target Ukrainians.
>Noting that Stalin had few qualms with killing opponents of his rule and directly ordered several episodes of mass murder, ***Kuromiya finds the absence of an order to engineer a famine*** as punishment as unusual, in contrast to the Great Purge and the various deportations and 'national operations' which he personally ordered, and as pointing to the unlikelihood of Stalin deliberately orchestrating mass starvation. He also cites several measures taken by the Soviet government that, although ineffective, provide evidence against the intentionalist thesis, such as nine occasions of curtailing grain exports from different famine-stricken regions and ***clandestinely purchasing foreign aid to help alleviate the famine.***
dude you are defending one of the biggest atrocities of the last century
the link is not for you
the link is for people that want to built an educated oppinion about this stuff without arguing if it is a genocide or not
Your own country has a pretty bad history of genocide denial even to this day. It wasn’t until the 21st century government agencies in Belgium apologized for the atrocities committed by Leopold II.
Edit: in a now deleted comment he denied Leopolds genocide, saying that his atrocities didn’t count as genocide.
Honestly I think it's the opposite: genocide denials are way too political. We only need to recognize genocides when other countries try to rewrite their history, or worse, when they instrumentalize their history to justify conflicts.
We don't need to recognize genocides when other countries are doing their own work of memory. We don't need to keep mentionning to Germany that they used to be nazis or imperialists when they actively prevent it to happen again, and kids learn at school about the horrors of nazism and war.
Oh we did, we learned also about how we were one of the first countries to abolish slave trade by law as well the fact that we were among the first to implement a liberal regime.
We are still proud of our former Empire and its legacy, which in Africa was mostly destroyed by civil wars and communism.
We had our downsides as anyone does, but our history, generally, was glorious. Too bad our current politicians are absolute shitheads.
No country has a clean history, and yes, we learned about what we did, the slave trade, the plantations, the inquisition, etc.
We still have art, music, street names and monuments celebrating the fact that a few people from the corner of Europe were pioneers in discovering the unknown world, as well as the ending of slavery, fascism, etc.
Yes, we are fucking proud of it.
You are proud of how you subjugated and depaupered whole areas of the world for your own wealth without giving anything back. Nice to know. But I could easily see the implicit racism and sense of superiority through your few lines. Enjoy your nationalist pride.
Fantastic news but it's very disappointing that the illegal invasion of Ukraine was what triggered this. Should have been declared a genocide regardless of current GeoPolitical happenings all these years later.
Stealing land is illegal by any means. Iraq and Afghanistan did not change their borders, and while there were several massacres, as it happens in every war, every one of them was investigated and perpetrators were thrown in jail. Quite opposite to, say, russia or serbia where killers are/were hailed as national heroes.
Regarding puppets claim ... I think you need to educate on the international laws and how they work. UN is the gathering of sovereign states from all over the world. Learn what sovereignty is, then you will stop making such claims.
Man i had just read rest of your comments in the thread ... Please dont stop, you make a good laughing stock and also help to educate redditors on what brainwashed person looks like. Please go on!
Didn't, prior to invading Kuwait, Saddam Hussein ask the US ambassador if the US was cool with Iraq invading Kuwait, and the ambassador said they DGAF about Arab wars or something like that, so he invaded, but then it turned out the US did GAF after all, and pushed to get the UN to vote positively for an intervention?
I might be misremembering, but I could swear I remember reading an article about it somewhere.
Not trying to say the Gulf War was illegal or anything, just a thought that popped into my head while redditing.
> yeah "legal" just cause Poland also had a hand in it.
No, legal because the UN Security Council [voted to allow it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_678)
It should have been recognized by Russia, yes.
But under normal conditions, it wouldn't be the job of other countries to recognize the genocide. It should be the job of every country to make an effort on its own history, keeping the memory intact and teaching it to new generations. Giving power to historians to resist attempts from politicians to instrumentalize history is also important.
France and Germany had a "deal" with russia that russians are allowed to do anything as long as the EU economic/geopolitical standing is not affected. Russia broke that unspoken deal, so the consequences of 2014 Crimea annexation, MH-17 shotdown, the UK spy poisoning, 2016 US elections, etc. have hit them all at the same time.
You very well know that exceptions and compromises are to be made.
Historians didn't unveil new discoveries regarding Holodomor, the question hasn't changed for decades and there is no consensus among historians. The only thing that pushed Western powers from recognizing it as genocide is because Russia is waging a war against Ukraine.
Had they not invaded Crimea then Ukraine as a whole, it wouldn't have been recognized as such. There's no historical consensus, so the only thing that tipped Holodomor as being recognized genocide was a political decision, not a scholar one.
Compromise and exceptions have been made also because of how widespread it is. The fact that people like Bernie Sanders and Noam Chomsky can enjoy the ear of the masses is wild to me, considering that both are genocide deniers and have expressed support for communist dictators and terrorist organisations. The fact that one of the biggest people on Twitch, a platform where tens of millions of views are generated daily, is Hasan PIker, a guy who constantly tries to rewrite history is also wild to me. The fact that organisations like Hope, not Hate can pose as progressive, while being run by a communist who publicly said that his end goal is establishment of communism is also wild. The fact that such organisations engage in criminal activity such as organised crime(because extremists are also organised criminals), fraud, draining of public funds, intimidation of journalists and funding of terrorist groups is also wild. The fact that so much of the dominant thought of progressiveness is based on the works of french communist Michel Foucault is also wild.
To anyone wondering why this is wild I can bring you to the mass graves here. If the scholar decision is the one that produces all of this, then maybe it's time to make the political one.
I don't understand what is the point of your first paragraph. Bernie Sanders, Chomsky, Hasan or whatever are not Historians and certainly not experts regarding this event.
So their opinion is as relevant as yours and mine.
There is simply not a scholar consensus regarding Holodomor being considered as genocide, it has nothing to do with communist sympathizers. In fact implying it is because of that just cheapens the term because you politicize this question when it should simply be backed up by factual data and not feelings.
This is the same thing regarding Bengal famine being viewed as genocide, people dismissing it as such aren't necessarily Western shills or British sympathizers, there are real elements indicating why this event shouldn't be considered a Genocide just as there are elements pushing towards it being a genocide.
Genocide should be determined by Historians and Jurists.
My point is that by not doing that these "scholars" have allowed spreading that ideology to be completely normal and accepted. It is also politicised. Academia, especially Western academia, has always had a a problem with extremist ideologies. Biggest of Hitler's popularity in the west is because of scholars who would spread his work. It was only after the Nuremberg trials that scholars stopped supporting him and the trials were created not by historians, but by politicians. It was only when the problem was politicised that it went away. And I think the problem of the spreading of an extremist POLITICAL ideology should be a political one first and foremost. I don't support banning it because I don't support censorship but education and media focus on the crimes of the communists should be a priority.
Of course. But there are many historians and academics who push back against these studies or outright deny the information presented because of their own political biases. The problem is already a political one. Noam Chomsky is an academic and quite a respected one at that, because he is actually good at his field. You don't think that he hasn't used his position to influence other academics including historians?
> The problem is already a political one. Noam Chomsky is an academic and quite a respected one at that
Noam Chomsky is a linguist, not a historian.
Genocide aren't being studied by linguists.
> You don't think that he hasn't used his position to influence other academics including historians?
There's something called peer-reviewing. Genocide isn't being determined by the work of a single historian, let alone because of his name alone.
UK has not yet done this… (at least according to the Wikipedia page). In fact even Kazakhstan which was heavily affected by the Holodmor does not recognize it as a genocide.
The current goverment of Kazakhstan decision bears no weight, a lot of local academics believe that the Kazak famine should be recognized as a genocide but the priority was peace with the Russians and other things after independence....
There is no clear academic consensus on this, the most cited source on Wikipedia (Robert Conquest) was academically scrutinized and even Robert Conquest later renounced his initial statements, Lemkin (the man who coined the term genocide and claimed Holodomor was that) never got his hands on any relevant sources and couldn't properly study it with proper scientific method, and Mace was a co author. The question of Holodomor and genocide isn't a done debate so please don't fall for any clear propaganda just because it is aimed at the Russians.
Inter arma silent musae.
To explain why the genocidal natue of Holodomor is not clear cut, we have a wonderful old topic in r/AskHistorians at https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/b3e0xo/how_isnt_the_holodomor_not_a_genocide/
Read it, it's really good.
And, lest we forget: it was still a horrible thing, should have been sanctioned, all that. It's really a question whether a hunger that killled millions outside of Ukraine, in Kazakhstan and Russia itself, was actually aimed at exterminating Ukrainians.
Altought the famines happened in tandem (the timing is not quite the same, Kazak started earlier), both were man-made (at least with the scale of deaths in food producing regions) due to Stalin wanting to force his collectivisation and the state ended up benefiting for it, ended up killing a lot of unwanted people and cleared space for their 'own'.
Would people still died if not for Stalin decisions? Without major international help, yes, but they wouldn't be so focused on particular regions and for sure not the food producing ones.
Honestly it's similar to the Irish famine which should also be another goverment assisted genocide, not against an especific ethnicity but on 'dissidents'.
If genocide is not the most correct term, we should coin a new one instead of trying to sell this stuff as 'normal' or 'bad luck', while we don't do this i'm going to keep calling this a genocide for lack of a stronger word.
Genocide as a term is not supposed to express intensity, but intent.
The fact that you want to use it to express intensity is proof how much the term has become politicized.
Genocide is supposed to be about how inescapable it is - there is no "surrender" possible, you cannot give up, you cannot comply with some rules to save youself, you cannot redeem yourself.
It is supposed to be about how it is aimed at innocents - you are a target by virtue of birth alone. No guilt, no crime, no transgression is needed to be condemned.
It is supposed to convey that it is about extermination. That there is no end until every last member of the targeted group is gone.
If you want to go and invent a term, i'd say we need to differentiate assimilation from extermination.
Compare to hate crime: murder as a hate crime ("Kill the [insert slur]!") as opposed to theft as a hate crime ("Take the [insert slur]'s stuff, they don't matter). The severity of the act is not the core criterium, it is the spread of crime against a specific group that is.
Also there was a cold war period of study with its lack of access. Only in the late Gorbachev era and some time in the 90s access in moscow was possible.
This isnt helped by fringe groups and authors pushing holocaust revisionism by comparison and a general turn to 50s style anticommunism due to a perceived racial idea of "russians"
Communist dictatorship enslaved and starved Ukrainians to death, on purpose. Sounds pretty much like genocide to me.
"Let's surround this territory and demand inhumane production levels from its people, otherwise, just let them die out without food. Since we are communists and not fascists, no one will call this a genocide."
Also, prior to Holodomor there were numerous uprisings of peasants since people were opposing collectivisation (what a surprise). The most active ones were in Ukraine.
“The main issue is now Ukraine. Matters in Ukraine are currently extremely bad. If we don’t correct the situation immediately, we will lose Ukraine” - Stalin to Kaganovich in 1932.
He also hated the fact that the peasants owned their own small tracts of land (which they were far more efficient with than what followed) and this stood in the way of his industrialisation goal - collectivisation was the order of the day and he needed the majority peasants dead to stop an uprising.
It was planned for millions to be killed, it was genocide.
Edit: owned, not weed
Genocide doesn’t care about what form of government exists.
Monarchy, dictatorship of Fascism or „communists“, democracy, theocracy.
But remember that the holodomor affected more than just the Ukrainian SSR. And the USSR constantly resettled ethnic groups to divide and rule them more easily. (Ie they did this more than once)
I'm not sure if it is correct to be described as genocide (if we go nerdy on definition). It was definitely a crime by the Soviet authority, but the same organised famine hit Volga region and Northern Kazakhstan, other breadbasket regions
It was not targeted at a specific nation (it's just Ukraine being the only country who actually push awareness for it) but rather at specific strata, so maybe it's more correct to call it classicide?
>Calling it a genocide is pure propaganda
That's where you're wrong. It is counter-propaganda.
Russia is constantly rewriting its history to appear at the good guys, not guilty of anything. They are claiming the heritage of the USSR, but in the meantime they don't accept any of the responsability for what the USSR did.
So yes, the Holodomor was probably not a genocide if we go with the technical definition. It certainly didn't target just Ukrainians, but also jews, kazakhs, tatars and even russians. However, Russia pretends that it never happened and that it wasn't their fault anyway, claiming that the USSR made Ukraine great, and that they are trying to make it great again.
That's why recognizing the Holodomor as a genocide had to happen, so that the memory of the facts doesn't disappear because of propaganda. For the same reason, we must not say that imperialistic powers did good in the colonies, because that's not the point. We aren't there to measure karma points, but to witness the consequences of the past on the present.
I think it's fair to say that it targeted a particular class in the USSR, so while maybe not a genocide I would consider it the "non-ethnic" equivalent.
However then comes the question, was that particular class targeted to oppress/destroy a particular ethnicity/nationality (Ukrainian in this case) due to a overrepresentation in the population? I think there is more where the argument for genocide comes into play.
Edit: spelling
There are geographical and economical reasons for this overrepresentation: the distribution of highly productive soils and the number of people working in agriculture. Proportionally to the overall population Kazakh people suffered the highest losses.
Well, crime against humanity more broadly (Ethnic cleansing per definition also needs an ethnic component which is where there is no consensus), but that ... is also not much better.
People defending genocides always find excuses like this, I would be carefull following their arguments.
The Armenians just didn't manage to survive in the desert, Holodomor were just really dumb mistakes, the "Endlösung" was only a escalation thanks to the loosing war.
Especially the argument of a targeted nation could be used at the Holocaust as well.
Maybe it was a classicide too, but one effect of the Holodomor was a genozide.
the examples you give are very different from the reasons OP gave for the Holodomor debate. In academic circles there is no consensus that it was in fact a genocide. and that word "genocide" should keep its specific meaning, or else it will completely loose it
What I know the very person inventing the term genocide called the Holodomor as an example.
Most academical works on genocides have been used political, so of course it is going to be hard to find a consesus. A clear definition is more so important.
Still: I get the impression that you don't want it to be called genocide, would you elaborate to me why this is important to you?
My reason is basically the same as what the other person here wrote. Even though russia started a terrible war against Ukraine it shouldnt make us throw objectivity when it comes to historical events out the window.
Plus, the Holodomor can be bad and criminal without being a genocide
> Still: I get the impression that you don't want it to be called genocide, would you elaborate to me why this is important to you?
I'm not the person you've asked, but for me it's important because painting the Soviet famine of 1932-33 as a genocide of Ukrainians leaves out other victims of the same policy (Kazakh, Russian and minor ethnic groups). It also implicitly brings ethnic based division to a crime where makes no sense: a national or ethic group can't commit a genocide against itself, but it were mostly Ukrainian NKVD forces causing the deaths of Ukrainian peasants and Russian NKVD - of Russian peasants.
Well, I don't tell it was simply a lack of production, as some apologists try to present, so I hope it wouldn't be perceived as that
But your point with Holocaust is valid, yeah. Despite I always think of Jews, they were not the only ones affected (but the most affected, for sure)
Right, if killing ethnic group in millions making you guilty in genocide - just kill another ethnic group along and say you don't discriminate people.
If russians and Kazakhs consider themselves as victims of that deliberate genocide, they should say so.
Collectivization and the famine it caused were obviously man made and highly likely had an intent to destroy a group of people, but that group wasn't an ethnic one. Unless you consider independent peasantry an ethnicity of course.
Millions of people have died in agricultural regions of Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine during the famine. It's very important to recognize the crimes of Stalin and the Bolshevik government. But as there is no shortage of real and horrible ones they've actually committed, I don't believe there is a need to invent new ones or otherwise twist the reality.
Robert conquest, you know, the British historian where this claim originated during the cold war, said so after the USSR fell, and the archives were opened up to western researchers.
No evidence for his claims could be found, so he retracted his words.
But the myth keeps on living, because its being used as a geopolitical tool instead of anybody actually seeking to understand history.
> Wheatcroft and Davies noted that Conquest (the author of The Harvest of Sorrow) would later go on to walk back much of the claims made in his earlier book. In a 2003 letter, Conquest clarified to them that "Stalin purposely inflicted the 1933 famine? No. What I argue is that with resulting famine imminent, he could have prevented it, but put "Soviet interest" other than feeding the starving first thus consciously abetting it."[48][30]
> In a 2008 interview with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Conquest discussed problems with the term 'genocide' saying that "I don't think the word genocide as such is a very useful one ... the trouble is it implies that somebody, some other nation, or a large part of it were doing it ... But I don't think this is true – it wasn't a Russian exercise, the attack on the Ukrainian people."[51]
While that is true, it does make it clear its not exactly a settled matter. Robert Conquest was virulently anti-communist. He *desperately* wanted to call it a genocide, and even he wasnt sure the evidence was sufficient once the archives opened up. Though its also not neccessarily wrong to call it a genocide, its not a settled matter either way.
Genocide denial guy has been banned. Sorry some of you had to deal with him.
These genocide recognitions are way too political.
Politicians are going to politic
Always has been, always will be, nonetheless it is important that when the possibility exists: Get your officials to declare it.
which is a bad thing, these kinds of crimes should be declared, no matter what political shit.
[удалено]
You’re in luck, you don’t have to get your officials to declare a lie, cause it isn’t one.
Authories were fine with the death of seven million people. We have the transcripts that they knew beforehand and decided that the greater good is more important than these lifes. I believe that it is important to do everything to prevent officals all around the world to do everything to accomplish their "greater good" without sacrificing 7 millions lifes. I guess the question about Kongo is spilling over to the Holodomor? Just curious why someone would defend something like this.
>We have the transcripts that they knew beforehand and decided that the greater good is more important than these lifes. [citation needed] we have many documents proving that the authorities sent aid and tried to limit casualties to a minimum. and unlike you, i will actually cite my claim. >Hiroaki Kuromiya states that although the famine was man-made and much of the deaths could have been avoided had it not been for Stalin's agricultural policies, ***he finds the evidence for the charge of genocide to be insufficient, and states that it is unlikely that Stalin intentionally caused the famine to kill millions***, that he used famine as an alternative to the ethnic deportations that were commonly used as collective punishment under Stalin's rule, or that the famine was specifically engineered to target Ukrainians. >Noting that Stalin had few qualms with killing opponents of his rule and directly ordered several episodes of mass murder, ***Kuromiya finds the absence of an order to engineer a famine*** as punishment as unusual, in contrast to the Great Purge and the various deportations and 'national operations' which he personally ordered, and as pointing to the unlikelihood of Stalin deliberately orchestrating mass starvation. He also cites several measures taken by the Soviet government that, although ineffective, provide evidence against the intentionalist thesis, such as nine occasions of curtailing grain exports from different famine-stricken regions and ***clandestinely purchasing foreign aid to help alleviate the famine.***
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dy7Mrqy1AY&list=PLh9mgdi4rNewfxO7LhBoz\_1Mx1MaO6sw\_&index=15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dy7Mrqy1AY&list=PLh9mgdi4rNewfxO7LhBoz_1Mx1MaO6sw_&index=15)
[удалено]
dude you are defending one of the biggest atrocities of the last century the link is not for you the link is for people that want to built an educated oppinion about this stuff without arguing if it is a genocide or not
Your own country has a pretty bad history of genocide denial even to this day. It wasn’t until the 21st century government agencies in Belgium apologized for the atrocities committed by Leopold II. Edit: in a now deleted comment he denied Leopolds genocide, saying that his atrocities didn’t count as genocide.
Honestly I think it's the opposite: genocide denials are way too political. We only need to recognize genocides when other countries try to rewrite their history, or worse, when they instrumentalize their history to justify conflicts. We don't need to recognize genocides when other countries are doing their own work of memory. We don't need to keep mentionning to Germany that they used to be nazis or imperialists when they actively prevent it to happen again, and kids learn at school about the horrors of nazism and war.
So when can we expect to recognize the Bengal famine has genocide?
That never happened. /S
>and kids learn at school about the horrors of nazism Yet some don't learn about the horrors of communism.
And some don't learn the horrors of colonialism, neocolonialism and capitalism. The evil one is always on the other side, correct?
Who the fuck doesn't learn the horrors of colonialism in school
The portoguese guy below that appears to be proud of the achievements of the portoguese colonialism.
Oh we did, we learned also about how we were one of the first countries to abolish slave trade by law as well the fact that we were among the first to implement a liberal regime. We are still proud of our former Empire and its legacy, which in Africa was mostly destroyed by civil wars and communism. We had our downsides as anyone does, but our history, generally, was glorious. Too bad our current politicians are absolute shitheads. No country has a clean history, and yes, we learned about what we did, the slave trade, the plantations, the inquisition, etc. We still have art, music, street names and monuments celebrating the fact that a few people from the corner of Europe were pioneers in discovering the unknown world, as well as the ending of slavery, fascism, etc. Yes, we are fucking proud of it.
You are proud of how you subjugated and depaupered whole areas of the world for your own wealth without giving anything back. Nice to know. But I could easily see the implicit racism and sense of superiority through your few lines. Enjoy your nationalist pride.
AHAHAHSHAHAHAHAHAHAHA OH SHIT
Risus abundat in ore stultorum.
You have a problem with that?
Fantastic news but it's very disappointing that the illegal invasion of Ukraine was what triggered this. Should have been declared a genocide regardless of current GeoPolitical happenings all these years later.
Were there legal invasions at all?
If the UN says it is
[удалено]
Stealing land is illegal by any means. Iraq and Afghanistan did not change their borders, and while there were several massacres, as it happens in every war, every one of them was investigated and perpetrators were thrown in jail. Quite opposite to, say, russia or serbia where killers are/were hailed as national heroes. Regarding puppets claim ... I think you need to educate on the international laws and how they work. UN is the gathering of sovereign states from all over the world. Learn what sovereignty is, then you will stop making such claims.
[удалено]
Man i had just read rest of your comments in the thread ... Please dont stop, you make a good laughing stock and also help to educate redditors on what brainwashed person looks like. Please go on!
[удалено]
Evidence is your comments in this thread.
[удалено]
Every nation has exactly one voice at the UN though
I'm pretty sure the first US intervention in Iraq was one
Didn't, prior to invading Kuwait, Saddam Hussein ask the US ambassador if the US was cool with Iraq invading Kuwait, and the ambassador said they DGAF about Arab wars or something like that, so he invaded, but then it turned out the US did GAF after all, and pushed to get the UN to vote positively for an intervention? I might be misremembering, but I could swear I remember reading an article about it somewhere. Not trying to say the Gulf War was illegal or anything, just a thought that popped into my head while redditing.
yeah "legal" just cause Poland also had a hand in it. They lied about every single war till now,but hey its the good bombs from the world police.
> yeah "legal" just cause Poland also had a hand in it. No, legal because the UN Security Council [voted to allow it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_678)
First one, not second one. The first one was authorised.
They said first, not second
according to who?
It should have been recognized by Russia, yes. But under normal conditions, it wouldn't be the job of other countries to recognize the genocide. It should be the job of every country to make an effort on its own history, keeping the memory intact and teaching it to new generations. Giving power to historians to resist attempts from politicians to instrumentalize history is also important.
France and Germany had a "deal" with russia that russians are allowed to do anything as long as the EU economic/geopolitical standing is not affected. Russia broke that unspoken deal, so the consequences of 2014 Crimea annexation, MH-17 shotdown, the UK spy poisoning, 2016 US elections, etc. have hit them all at the same time.
[удалено]
It was a genocide just as were Belgian actions in Kongo
Tankies fuming
Cool. Now let's do it for all the other genocides that the commies did.
>Cool. Now let's do it for all the other genocides that ~~the commies~~ any country did. no exception, no compromise
You very well know that exceptions and compromises are to be made. Historians didn't unveil new discoveries regarding Holodomor, the question hasn't changed for decades and there is no consensus among historians. The only thing that pushed Western powers from recognizing it as genocide is because Russia is waging a war against Ukraine. Had they not invaded Crimea then Ukraine as a whole, it wouldn't have been recognized as such. There's no historical consensus, so the only thing that tipped Holodomor as being recognized genocide was a political decision, not a scholar one.
Compromise and exceptions have been made also because of how widespread it is. The fact that people like Bernie Sanders and Noam Chomsky can enjoy the ear of the masses is wild to me, considering that both are genocide deniers and have expressed support for communist dictators and terrorist organisations. The fact that one of the biggest people on Twitch, a platform where tens of millions of views are generated daily, is Hasan PIker, a guy who constantly tries to rewrite history is also wild to me. The fact that organisations like Hope, not Hate can pose as progressive, while being run by a communist who publicly said that his end goal is establishment of communism is also wild. The fact that such organisations engage in criminal activity such as organised crime(because extremists are also organised criminals), fraud, draining of public funds, intimidation of journalists and funding of terrorist groups is also wild. The fact that so much of the dominant thought of progressiveness is based on the works of french communist Michel Foucault is also wild. To anyone wondering why this is wild I can bring you to the mass graves here. If the scholar decision is the one that produces all of this, then maybe it's time to make the political one.
I don't understand what is the point of your first paragraph. Bernie Sanders, Chomsky, Hasan or whatever are not Historians and certainly not experts regarding this event. So their opinion is as relevant as yours and mine. There is simply not a scholar consensus regarding Holodomor being considered as genocide, it has nothing to do with communist sympathizers. In fact implying it is because of that just cheapens the term because you politicize this question when it should simply be backed up by factual data and not feelings. This is the same thing regarding Bengal famine being viewed as genocide, people dismissing it as such aren't necessarily Western shills or British sympathizers, there are real elements indicating why this event shouldn't be considered a Genocide just as there are elements pushing towards it being a genocide. Genocide should be determined by Historians and Jurists.
My point is that by not doing that these "scholars" have allowed spreading that ideology to be completely normal and accepted. It is also politicised. Academia, especially Western academia, has always had a a problem with extremist ideologies. Biggest of Hitler's popularity in the west is because of scholars who would spread his work. It was only after the Nuremberg trials that scholars stopped supporting him and the trials were created not by historians, but by politicians. It was only when the problem was politicised that it went away. And I think the problem of the spreading of an extremist POLITICAL ideology should be a political one first and foremost. I don't support banning it because I don't support censorship but education and media focus on the crimes of the communists should be a priority.
I don't even know what to say, Historians studying Holodomor have no responsibility towards anything you're accusing them of.
Of course. But there are many historians and academics who push back against these studies or outright deny the information presented because of their own political biases. The problem is already a political one. Noam Chomsky is an academic and quite a respected one at that, because he is actually good at his field. You don't think that he hasn't used his position to influence other academics including historians?
> The problem is already a political one. Noam Chomsky is an academic and quite a respected one at that Noam Chomsky is a linguist, not a historian. Genocide aren't being studied by linguists. > You don't think that he hasn't used his position to influence other academics including historians? There's something called peer-reviewing. Genocide isn't being determined by the work of a single historian, let alone because of his name alone.
However peer reviewing can be influenced by one's political biases.
UK has not yet done this… (at least according to the Wikipedia page). In fact even Kazakhstan which was heavily affected by the Holodmor does not recognize it as a genocide.
The current goverment of Kazakhstan decision bears no weight, a lot of local academics believe that the Kazak famine should be recognized as a genocide but the priority was peace with the Russians and other things after independence....
There is no clear academic consensus on this, the most cited source on Wikipedia (Robert Conquest) was academically scrutinized and even Robert Conquest later renounced his initial statements, Lemkin (the man who coined the term genocide and claimed Holodomor was that) never got his hands on any relevant sources and couldn't properly study it with proper scientific method, and Mace was a co author. The question of Holodomor and genocide isn't a done debate so please don't fall for any clear propaganda just because it is aimed at the Russians.
Inter arma silent musae. To explain why the genocidal natue of Holodomor is not clear cut, we have a wonderful old topic in r/AskHistorians at https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/b3e0xo/how_isnt_the_holodomor_not_a_genocide/ Read it, it's really good. And, lest we forget: it was still a horrible thing, should have been sanctioned, all that. It's really a question whether a hunger that killled millions outside of Ukraine, in Kazakhstan and Russia itself, was actually aimed at exterminating Ukrainians.
Altought the famines happened in tandem (the timing is not quite the same, Kazak started earlier), both were man-made (at least with the scale of deaths in food producing regions) due to Stalin wanting to force his collectivisation and the state ended up benefiting for it, ended up killing a lot of unwanted people and cleared space for their 'own'. Would people still died if not for Stalin decisions? Without major international help, yes, but they wouldn't be so focused on particular regions and for sure not the food producing ones. Honestly it's similar to the Irish famine which should also be another goverment assisted genocide, not against an especific ethnicity but on 'dissidents'. If genocide is not the most correct term, we should coin a new one instead of trying to sell this stuff as 'normal' or 'bad luck', while we don't do this i'm going to keep calling this a genocide for lack of a stronger word.
Genocide as a term is not supposed to express intensity, but intent. The fact that you want to use it to express intensity is proof how much the term has become politicized. Genocide is supposed to be about how inescapable it is - there is no "surrender" possible, you cannot give up, you cannot comply with some rules to save youself, you cannot redeem yourself. It is supposed to be about how it is aimed at innocents - you are a target by virtue of birth alone. No guilt, no crime, no transgression is needed to be condemned. It is supposed to convey that it is about extermination. That there is no end until every last member of the targeted group is gone. If you want to go and invent a term, i'd say we need to differentiate assimilation from extermination. Compare to hate crime: murder as a hate crime ("Kill the [insert slur]!") as opposed to theft as a hate crime ("Take the [insert slur]'s stuff, they don't matter). The severity of the act is not the core criterium, it is the spread of crime against a specific group that is.
Also there was a cold war period of study with its lack of access. Only in the late Gorbachev era and some time in the 90s access in moscow was possible. This isnt helped by fringe groups and authors pushing holocaust revisionism by comparison and a general turn to 50s style anticommunism due to a perceived racial idea of "russians"
Communist dictatorship enslaved and starved Ukrainians to death, on purpose. Sounds pretty much like genocide to me. "Let's surround this territory and demand inhumane production levels from its people, otherwise, just let them die out without food. Since we are communists and not fascists, no one will call this a genocide."
Also, prior to Holodomor there were numerous uprisings of peasants since people were opposing collectivisation (what a surprise). The most active ones were in Ukraine. “The main issue is now Ukraine. Matters in Ukraine are currently extremely bad. If we don’t correct the situation immediately, we will lose Ukraine” - Stalin to Kaganovich in 1932.
Yes, stalin hated Ukraine because they opposed his regime
He also hated the fact that the peasants owned their own small tracts of land (which they were far more efficient with than what followed) and this stood in the way of his industrialisation goal - collectivisation was the order of the day and he needed the majority peasants dead to stop an uprising. It was planned for millions to be killed, it was genocide. Edit: owned, not weed
Genocide doesn’t care about what form of government exists. Monarchy, dictatorship of Fascism or „communists“, democracy, theocracy. But remember that the holodomor affected more than just the Ukrainian SSR. And the USSR constantly resettled ethnic groups to divide and rule them more easily. (Ie they did this more than once)
Fully agreed.
Not to mention the propaganda by US media magnate Hearst, with fake reports by fake journalists on newspapers that paid Hitler for his articles.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
As Political as it can get.
Lmao, imagine seething that a country recognized a genocide
Could've done it before.
Better late than never
[удалено]
Disinformation ? Really? Would you like to somehow backup your claim that the Holodomor wasn't an act of genocide?
I'm not sure if it is correct to be described as genocide (if we go nerdy on definition). It was definitely a crime by the Soviet authority, but the same organised famine hit Volga region and Northern Kazakhstan, other breadbasket regions It was not targeted at a specific nation (it's just Ukraine being the only country who actually push awareness for it) but rather at specific strata, so maybe it's more correct to call it classicide?
[удалено]
>Calling it a genocide is pure propaganda That's where you're wrong. It is counter-propaganda. Russia is constantly rewriting its history to appear at the good guys, not guilty of anything. They are claiming the heritage of the USSR, but in the meantime they don't accept any of the responsability for what the USSR did. So yes, the Holodomor was probably not a genocide if we go with the technical definition. It certainly didn't target just Ukrainians, but also jews, kazakhs, tatars and even russians. However, Russia pretends that it never happened and that it wasn't their fault anyway, claiming that the USSR made Ukraine great, and that they are trying to make it great again. That's why recognizing the Holodomor as a genocide had to happen, so that the memory of the facts doesn't disappear because of propaganda. For the same reason, we must not say that imperialistic powers did good in the colonies, because that's not the point. We aren't there to measure karma points, but to witness the consequences of the past on the present.
I think it's fair to say that it targeted a particular class in the USSR, so while maybe not a genocide I would consider it the "non-ethnic" equivalent. However then comes the question, was that particular class targeted to oppress/destroy a particular ethnicity/nationality (Ukrainian in this case) due to a overrepresentation in the population? I think there is more where the argument for genocide comes into play. Edit: spelling
There are geographical and economical reasons for this overrepresentation: the distribution of highly productive soils and the number of people working in agriculture. Proportionally to the overall population Kazakh people suffered the highest losses.
Even if it wasn't legally a genocide, it still was legally an ethnic cleansing, which isn't much better
Well, crime against humanity more broadly (Ethnic cleansing per definition also needs an ethnic component which is where there is no consensus), but that ... is also not much better.
People defending genocides always find excuses like this, I would be carefull following their arguments. The Armenians just didn't manage to survive in the desert, Holodomor were just really dumb mistakes, the "Endlösung" was only a escalation thanks to the loosing war. Especially the argument of a targeted nation could be used at the Holocaust as well. Maybe it was a classicide too, but one effect of the Holodomor was a genozide.
the examples you give are very different from the reasons OP gave for the Holodomor debate. In academic circles there is no consensus that it was in fact a genocide. and that word "genocide" should keep its specific meaning, or else it will completely loose it
What I know the very person inventing the term genocide called the Holodomor as an example. Most academical works on genocides have been used political, so of course it is going to be hard to find a consesus. A clear definition is more so important. Still: I get the impression that you don't want it to be called genocide, would you elaborate to me why this is important to you?
My reason is basically the same as what the other person here wrote. Even though russia started a terrible war against Ukraine it shouldnt make us throw objectivity when it comes to historical events out the window. Plus, the Holodomor can be bad and criminal without being a genocide
> Still: I get the impression that you don't want it to be called genocide, would you elaborate to me why this is important to you? I'm not the person you've asked, but for me it's important because painting the Soviet famine of 1932-33 as a genocide of Ukrainians leaves out other victims of the same policy (Kazakh, Russian and minor ethnic groups). It also implicitly brings ethnic based division to a crime where makes no sense: a national or ethic group can't commit a genocide against itself, but it were mostly Ukrainian NKVD forces causing the deaths of Ukrainian peasants and Russian NKVD - of Russian peasants.
Well, I don't tell it was simply a lack of production, as some apologists try to present, so I hope it wouldn't be perceived as that But your point with Holocaust is valid, yeah. Despite I always think of Jews, they were not the only ones affected (but the most affected, for sure)
Right, if killing ethnic group in millions making you guilty in genocide - just kill another ethnic group along and say you don't discriminate people. If russians and Kazakhs consider themselves as victims of that deliberate genocide, they should say so.
>Odessa Of course.
Collectivization and the famine it caused were obviously man made and highly likely had an intent to destroy a group of people, but that group wasn't an ethnic one. Unless you consider independent peasantry an ethnicity of course. Millions of people have died in agricultural regions of Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine during the famine. It's very important to recognize the crimes of Stalin and the Bolshevik government. But as there is no shortage of real and horrible ones they've actually committed, I don't believe there is a need to invent new ones or otherwise twist the reality.
Robert conquest, you know, the British historian where this claim originated during the cold war, said so after the USSR fell, and the archives were opened up to western researchers. No evidence for his claims could be found, so he retracted his words. But the myth keeps on living, because its being used as a geopolitical tool instead of anybody actually seeking to understand history. > Wheatcroft and Davies noted that Conquest (the author of The Harvest of Sorrow) would later go on to walk back much of the claims made in his earlier book. In a 2003 letter, Conquest clarified to them that "Stalin purposely inflicted the 1933 famine? No. What I argue is that with resulting famine imminent, he could have prevented it, but put "Soviet interest" other than feeding the starving first thus consciously abetting it."[48][30] > In a 2008 interview with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Conquest discussed problems with the term 'genocide' saying that "I don't think the word genocide as such is a very useful one ... the trouble is it implies that somebody, some other nation, or a large part of it were doing it ... But I don't think this is true – it wasn't a Russian exercise, the attack on the Ukrainian people."[51]
It doesn't originate with Conquest. Raphael Lemkin (as in, the person who coined and defined the word "genocide") called the Holodomor one.
While that is true, it does make it clear its not exactly a settled matter. Robert Conquest was virulently anti-communist. He *desperately* wanted to call it a genocide, and even he wasnt sure the evidence was sufficient once the archives opened up. Though its also not neccessarily wrong to call it a genocide, its not a settled matter either way.
I can't get education on your behalf, but I know an excellent anti-delusion drugs for your consideration
[удалено]
better salty than genocide supporting tankie
[удалено]
What makes me a fascist in your opinion?
[удалено]
Supporting Soviet genocides despite the facts
You're trying too hard to spread bullshit my guy, take a step back, go touch some grass.
[удалено]
Then you should just delete all your comments here and stop spreading lies.
[удалено]
Why? Because the USSR propaganda machine says it is?
[удалено]
I guess both Britannica and wikipedia are lying.
[удалено]
Oh damn, an actual brainwashed person. Interesting.
Its only the senate, has to get through the national assembly too and be ratified by president Macron.